What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

Does Reinin's functional model (1st/2nd/3rd/4th, Plus/Minus) sync up pretty well with Model A, or is it better to interpret this stuff with a completely blank slate?

I pulled an all-nighter to (more or less) finish the thing; and, surprisingly, really, really liked it, as he described and defined types/functions/relations in ways I've never really seen or heard before. Hence, the question: Is that because he's looking at things from a very different angle, or is he just kinda flat-out wrong?

I can only voice for myself, but that's (I mean - the one in this book) definitely the best ENTj description I've read. Captures many essential aspects which aren't usually explained by, say, socionics.org descriptions.

I'm sorry to say the EII description is not as "full" as many of the others, but the ILE description was honestly the best I've read. Every detail about it fits me to a T, which is never the case in other type descriptions I read, and not the case in any other of these descriptions from the book. I always score ILE in Reinin dichotomies.

Originally Posted by CILi

To anyone in the know:

Does Reinin's functional model (1st/2nd/3rd/4th, Plus/Minus) sync up pretty well with Model A, or is it better to interpret this stuff with a completely blank slate?

I pulled an all-nighter to (more or less) finish the thing; and, surprisingly, really, really liked it, as he described and defined types/functions/relations in ways I've never really seen or heard before. Hence, the question: Is that because he's looking at things from a very different angle, or is he just kinda flat-out wrong?

I would guess yes it does compute, though it has its different focuses and interpretations (and description-wise I would conclude it accurate) but he basically collaborated with Aushra about the theory, to where Reinin dichotomies were considered Classical Socionics, and she approved of much of his research. An angle such as Fe dominants constantly involving and adapting themselves in the relationship aspect, so they can better "act" accordingly, versus Fi dominants staying true to their personal attitudes toward people (with possibly some deeper explanation of Fi), which essentially stems a different definition of the word "relationship" if I'm not mistaken, and let's think about static and dynamic, seems quite reasonable and valid to me.

Does Reinin's functional model (1st/2nd/3rd/4th, Plus/Minus) sync up pretty well with Model A, or is it better to interpret this stuff with a completely blank slate?

I pulled an all-nighter to (more or less) finish the thing; and, surprisingly, really, really liked it, as he described and defined types/functions/relations in ways I've never really seen or heard before. Hence, the question: Is that because he's looking at things from a very different angle, or is he just kinda flat-out wrong?

IMO, he's got a lot of things very right, and I do like the model he uses better. The symmetry of it helps explain the elements in their functional spots better for me. The polr (-3 function in the steering wheel model) is described as problem-solving, rather than some sort of massive weak area, which is more accurate as far as I've seen, and it's the DS that is a vulnerability for us, because we're so dependent on others here, which is true. You don't have to forget about model A to use/interpret it, but a few things have a different slant or focus.

PS. There used to be a visual of the steering wheel model on socionics.com I think. It's not there anymore.

“The world should live in harmony, people deserve to be happy", says a Robespierre, "so let's take a guillotine and chop off heads of all bad people who hamper our creation so that only good ones remain and everyone will be happy. Let's build a society free of the bad people, oppression, violence, injustice … But this purpose is achieved by means of a guillotine”. This is how this type expresses his creativity.

“The world should live in harmony, people deserve to be happy", says a Robespierre, "so let's take a guillotine and chop off heads of all bad people who hamper our creation so that only good ones remain and everyone will be happy. Let's build a society free of the bad people, oppression, violence, injustice … But this purpose is achieved by means of a guillotine”. This is how this type expresses his creativity.

Fuck yeaaaaaaa.

Sarcasm? Sounds like a description based on a single historical person who was psychopathic and quite likely not an INTj to begin with.

No it's reinen's way of focusing on LII's tendency to use binary logic to put all people in a good and bad category. Robespierre is indeed LII, or at the very least his entire historical persona was written to make him look like an LII (lulz). Also, everyone has the potential to commit acts that others would call "psychopathic", depending on circumstances they find themselves in. Calling him psychopathic does not differentiate him from everyone else involved in events such as revolutions, or even your average Joe in the modern day. He did what he had to do.

I'm tired of people referring to all killing as psychopathic and murderous. It really is necessary sometimes.

No it's reinen's way of focusing on LII's tendency to use binary logic to put all people in a good and bad category.

No idea what on earth you're talking about. Most people are in a grey area and it's not even ever a given that one's own actions - no matter how well intended - have net positive effect on the world. INTjs are typically 'wise' enough to realize this. Also binary logic is Te.

I'm tired of people referring to all killing as psychopathic and murderous. It really is necessary sometimes.

Killing is only ever necessary in self-defense. If you need to kill to make people accept the perfect little society you drew up on a napkin, that makes you a murderer. Maybe not a psychopath, and you might be right in the end, but certainly nuts.

Originally Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville

What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

Killing is only ever necessary in self-defense. If you need to kill to make people accept the perfect little society you drew up on a napkin, that makes you a murderer. Maybe not a psychopath, and you might be right in the end, but certainly nuts.

So what makes your view that killing is only necessary in self-defense different to the view that killing is necessary for the realisation of utopia?

So what makes your view that killing is only necessary in self-defense different to the view that killing is necessary for the realisation of utopia?

Certainty about the consequences. Add to it that a Utopia may not be desirable in the end.

Originally Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville

What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

Haha. That's a good example for LII binary logic crispy, as well as LII imagination, partly because I know some LIIs who'd say basically the same things . That doesn't mean they actually go around killing people lol, its a metaphor ("guillotine"). They might side with the morals of those who've killed bad people, just as much as they'd side with the death of an institution or a person delivering the principle in a metaphysical sense, by something as simple as repression or running from evil (or see the Se description), the more justice for the world in their imaginary ideal, which isn't less normal or realistic than the world we live in now. They accept that the rules are meant to be broken in order to achieve a rational purpose. You have to understand this analogy from the unique LII point of view of creative Ne. It doesn't imply that everyone thinks these things about LIIs, or of course that all LIIs would, just those who understand the internal mechanics of their logic can see how they would come to non-standard conclusions about scenarios they've only been thinking about from a detached point of view.

Nope. Nobody I've been in contact with knows how to hack, certainly not Discojoe. The most I've seen him do is post those dirty pictures until he got banned.
If by persuading you mean "laughing at the idea of" then yes, I have done that numerous times. But there is no logical reason for me to want to hack/harm this website.
Real oppression is impossible to accomplish on the intertubes luuullllzzz.

That LII description was perhaps the worst I've ever read. Most of it just disgusted me that they would project the actions of one man over all LIIs.

Like take the following for instance;

Originally Posted by book

"The world is the way I see it. If you have evidence that it's not the way I see it, too bad for the world. Anyway it's not my business; just keep your opinion to yourself. I think the world should be exactly how I see it."

Contradictory to the definition of Utopia. This one gave me a nice chuckle.

Only if your "Utopia" is defined in the first to be mostly desirable to everyone at every point in time.

Originally Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville

What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

I'm sure that was nowhere near his intent.
Of course it is. That is what is aimed for at least.

Hence certainty.

Originally Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville

What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

There is not 100% certainty in a regular self defense situation.
Bad guy is attempting to kill your family.
You decide to stop him.
Your family is dead.
You attack.
Bad guy is dead.
You go to jail for murder, because you attacked too late (not self-defense anymore).

Your waiting for a 100% certainty (because clearly there were more unseen consequences) would end with a worse situation. The mother fucker got away.

(I didn't know there were so many people against the death penalty here: "Nobody's really bad!": poor mislead souls.)

There are two lists of Celebrities for each type in the book. One is from Reinen, and one is horribly wrong (The ALL CAPS ones I believe). I would ignore the famous descriptions and focus on the theoretical points (which are correct). Works just like all socionics articles.

I didn't know if your lone option C was rhetorical or a considered plausibility.

Originally Posted by polikujm

You're still leaning ILI for that analytical and structured mind, after reading this ILI description? Or is it something else?

I haven't thoroughly read the whole thing yet (too much work this week, prolly get to it on the weekend). Most sources say ILI > LII, so it's my best guess (+ he admitted in interview he was NT, and I is pretty obvious). When I read some of his works back-to-back with INTx descriptions I'll be able to come up with a more personal conclusion.

I haven't thoroughly read the whole thing yet (too much work this week, prolly get to it on the weekend). Most sources say ILI > LII, so it's my best guess (+ he admitted in interview he was NT, and I is pretty obvious). When I read some of his works back-to-back with INTx descriptions I'll be able to come up with a more personal conclusion.

Heh, I should hope so. Also, study some of the other ILIs and LIIs he types.

I didn't know if your lone option C was rhetorical or a considered plausibility.

It was a joke in reference to a passage from the SEI description.

"If this type chooses to take a look at their psyche then things may go in three different ways: a) he scratches the surface of his inner self, but he has an impression he reached the bottom; b) he studied only ideas about oneself; c) this is not a Dumas."

And even if they're supposed to be abstract descriptions I still don't see how that even translates to any individual person who has that personality type. It's like the ridiculous projections about careless violence and harm caused by a burning desire to enforce 'justice'.

And if they're supposed to be abstract descriptions I still don't see how that even translates to any individual person who has that personality type. It's like the ridiculous projections about careless violence and harm caused by a burning desire to enforce 'justice'.

My question to you is: are you LII? It doesn't make sense to criticise a description of a type that is not yours, and in fact a description that has been positively evaluated by a person of that type.

Especially if you're across the Merry/Serious divide, what to you sounds like "insanity, stupidity, ignorance, etc." is just a difference in how logical information gets processed. It's nonsensical to pass such judgements, seemingly as an arbiter of what Truth is.

And even if they're supposed to be abstract descriptions I still don't see how that even translates to any individual person who has that personality type. It's like the ridiculous projections about careless violence and harm caused by a burning desire to enforce 'justice'.

Lol. Yeah you're not LII. I don't agree with your equation, since when is evidence and proof an automatic justification for the truth? Hehe. (especially when the truth is not of a current situation or understanding, but a rational ideal forged by the principles sought with Ne.)

That's not what it says. It's read: "If you have a piece of evidence that goes against my understanding, I don't care, because my understanding is still correct. The evidence is misleading and does not describe the way the world generally works (as I have come to know)."

I'll have to reread it--skimmed some parts--but I appreciated that the type descriptions weren't just total regurgitations of things I'd already read. Although weaknesses are still being pointed out, it seemed to me that the IEI description was a little less stereotypically "useless head-in-clouds easygoing person" than some I've encountered. Heh--even if I am that (except the easygoing part), I'm other things, too.

I liked the way that the various functions are arranged to show how to address weaknesses and blind spots indirectly.